That the BBT is a good solid scientific theory, and it will and should be replaced when another that explains more and fits the data better comes along. Until then, you probably shouldn't act like it's just speculation and extrapolation, and that the mere existence of possible replacements should let you treat BBT as though it were just a guess.

Quote:

BBT requites extrapolation, some others are questioning whether all the assumptions made were really correct. People with a lot more education on the subject than both of us have wondered if there were flaws in the BBT.

Sure. Nobody, afaik, has claimed that the BBT is the be all end all and we shouldn't keep looking. Nobody has claimed we shouldn't check assumptions, afaik. If you've seen someone in the thread do that, please quote them - and I will admit I was wrong about no one stating that. Publicly. Provided that's actually what they claimed.

Until then, please
a) Provide evidence I have ever claimed science can prove or disprove a diety
or
b) Admit that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Oh my, has this been a fun couple of days! However, I think spotlighting Doc's inability to answer a direct question has played itself out for the time being. I'm sure we will be revisiting this topic again soon. If for no other reason than its inherit entertainment value.

Bye for now Doc, thanks for the laughs!

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Are you saying that you believe that nothing in science proves or disproves the possibility of a deity? If that's actually your position, just say so.

Are you alleging that I haven't just said so, twice, in this thread already?

If so please explain how

Quote:

Originally Posted by void *

I am not the one dodging the question. You know (or *should* know) well that I have stated multiple times that I do not think that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by void *

If that's not clear enough for you : I do not think that the existence or nonexistence of a deity/creator is provable one way or the other, I've stated this multiple times, in responses to posts you have made, and I think it's ridiculous that you pretend otherwise.

are not statements that clearly indicate I do not think it is provable whether or not a deity exists, through science or otherwise.

While you're at it, could you please
a) Provide evidence I have ever claimed science can prove or disprove a diety
or
b) Admit that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

You've never reconsidered something you've said before? Are you really sure about that?

Are you sure you want to keep going with the name calling? I see it as a juvenile response when you run out of your grown up words.

You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that your opinion isn't the only one out there. Most people can actually appreciate that. The hostile response I am getting almost certainly means that you are uncomfortable with some of my opinions, like that you likely believe a lot of what you probably thought you knew, or that you have taken some things on faith.

You're going to have to find a way to get over it. Or not. See ya around.

Scientists can be wrong sure. What's your point?

Yes I have reconsidered things. And I can admit that when I had need to do so, I was wrong about my prior stance, or in some cases had no idea what I was talking about. So far you have proved over an over again that you are too prideful or cowardly to do so.

Am I sure about name calling? This from the guy that has made negative aspersions about my upbringing and therefore my parents, as if you had any clue how I was raised? Is that another veiled threat of some kind? You going to report me to the mods as if all I ever do is name call? Yes I throw some insults around but 99% of the time I also make OT points that minus the insults are legitimate. I insult when I think it is called for. Even when I don't you accuse me of doing so, which almost certainly means that you are overly sensitive. See how such projection works?

I don't care if you find it juvenile. I won't be mau-maued. The hostile responses you are getting doesn't mean that I am uncomfortable with your opinions. It means that I think you are an assclown. You're so full of yourself. I don't have any issues with having faith in things or believing rather than knowing. I'm am not an atheist but you accuse me like you accuse them. Yet again an example of how you mischaracterize if not out right lie about things others have never stated or claimed.

You're too damn dense to realize that faith doesn't bother me. It also does not equate to or require religion. So you see its you that are going to have to get over it. I was over it long before we ever exchanged words on the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...It's still a cool picture.

And another attempt at misdirection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...What did you think of the article. Pretty interesting.

And another. I doubt you even understood that article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...I'm not too attached to the BBT. It might be right, it might not, there are still some missing details. What happened happened, but we may not have described it perfectly yet.

Are you saying that you believe that nothing in science proves or disproves the possibility of a deity? If that's actually your position, just say so.

You're not to attached to the theory that at this point and time is the best language representation of the math that has proven to be correct via every experiment we have conducted in 100 years or so? Who would have guessed? Your middle of the road stances make you more enlightened than others with convictions BS is comical.

And oh boy you keep trying to get others to play your game, answer your questions in order to obfuscate your own errors. I will give you credit for your persistence but not for your dishonesty. Others would have long ago found it easier to admit they were wrong rather than trying so hard to perpetuate their lies and ignorance as a higher thought process.

Yes I have reconsidered things. And I can admit that when I had need to do so, I was wrong about my prior stance, or in some cases had no idea what I was talking about. So far you have proved over an over again that you are too prideful or cowardly to do so.

Oh my, has this been a fun couple of days! However, I think spotlighting Doc's inability to answer a direct question has played itself out for the time being. I'm sure we will be revisiting this topic again soon. If for no other reason than its inherit entertainment value.

Bye for now Doc, thanks for the laughs!

It's even more fun when you aren't emotionally decompensating over such simple disagreements.

Actually, no. First, I cannot trust your statement that you will take my statement at face value, given that I have made such statements to you multiple times in the past, and yet you still accused me of being someone who faithfully believes that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists. In my opinion you are quite likely to make such an accusation in the future, despite my having recently made the statements yet again. You've done so before, I have no reasonable assurance that you will not do so again.

Second, you have not yet
a) Provided evidence I have ever claimed science can prove or disprove a diety
or
b) Admitted that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation

You've merely avoided actually doing so.

Like I said before - integrity. Can you man up and write the words "Yes, void, I did in fact accuse you of something I had no evidence for", or something to that effect, or not? Will you continue to avoid it, hoping it will all go away?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Actually, no. First, I cannot trust your statement that you will take my statement at face value, given that I have made such statements to you multiple times in the past, and yet you still accused me of being someonewho faithfully believes that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists.
...
...

If I ever get your position wrong again, just state what your actual position is.

No big. It's not like I don't experience the same thing around here daily. I just correct the mistake, and move on.

If I ever get your position wrong again, just state what your actual position is.

I suppose that's enough of an admission, given that you're at least stating that you were wrong (although you're not quite admitting you had no basis to make the statement in the first place ...)

Do me a favor, though - at least try not to get my position on *that* wrong again. Especially since it's a position that I have stated, to you, multiple times. Fair enough?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

...No big. It's not like I don't experience the same thing around here daily. I just correct the mistake, and move on.

Holy smokes the victim card. Who would of though you would sink that low? You have got to be the biggest chicken **** Dbag on GT ever. Oh I'm sorry did I insult you again? My bad. I imagine I did so because you make me uncomfortable not because I think you're an assclown of the highest magnitude. I'm probably so insecure in my own beliefs that you can more accurately state my position on the subject because their is no way I could take from your responses that you're just a huge Dbag. I'm sorry I insulted you again. I apologize in advance if I hurt your feely weelings.

Holy smokes the victim card. Who would of though you would sink that low? You have got to be the biggest chicken **** Dbag on GT ever. Oh I'm sorry did I insult you again? My bad. I imagine I did so because you make me uncomfortable not because I think you're an assclown of the highest magnitude. I'm probably so insecure in my own beliefs that you can more accurately state my position on the subject because their is no way I could take from your responses that you're just a huge Dbag. I'm sorry I insulted you again. I apologize in advance if I hurt your feely weelings.

Get over yourself.

You have a hard time with the concept of respectful disagreement. It doesn't hurt at all. It's most certainly not a convincing strategy.

You have a hard time with the concept of respectful disagreement. It doesn't hurt at all. It's most certainly not a convincing strategy.

I don't have a hard time with anything. You have a hard time understanding that I will not treat you with respect just because you think it's appropriate. You don't deserve respect and will get none from me.

You also don't get that I don't care if you think it is a convincing strategy. I do not care if you are convinced. You are not the end all be all and my positions are not dependent on you. Again get over yourself.

I don't have a hard time with anything. You have a hard time understanding that I will not treat you with respect just because you think it's appropriate. You don't deserve respect and will get none from me.

You also don't get that I don't care if you think it is a convincing strategy. I do not care if you are convinced. You are not the end all be all and my positions are not dependent on you. Again get over yourself.

Just how much do you think it bothers me that you choose to act without manners on an Internet forum? Your poor behavior does me no harm. You're little more that an avatar and a bad attitude to me.

He who gets over it first wins, and I was over your lack of an ability to calmly have a disagreement a while ago. The only one emotionally decomposing between the two of us is you.